Mr G Taylor v EDF Energy: 1403518/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claims are dismissed under rule 47.REASONS
[2]By a claim form presented on 28 September 2018, the claimant brought claims against the respondent of: 2.1. unfair dismissal; 2.2. disability discrimination.[3]On 4 October 2018, notice of a preliminary hearing was sent to the parties: 3.1. to be heard at 2nd Floor, Keeble House, Southernhay Gardens, Exeter, EX1 1NT, on Friday, 25 January 2019; 3.2. to determine whether the claim should be dismissed because the claimant is not entitled to bring it if the statutory time limit has expired.[4]The claimant did not attend the hearing today and nor did he contact the Tribunal (by telephone, email or letter) to say that he would not attend or offer any explanation for his absence. This morning, the Tribunal administration attempted, without any success, to contact the claimant by telephone and email, using the number and address in his claim form. Case Number: 1403518/2019[5]Shortly after 1pm, the respondent applied for the claimant’s claims to be dismissed under rule 47 of schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013: If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[6]Pursuant to rule 47 and in the interests of justice, I have decided to dismiss the claim for the following reasons: 6.1. proper notice of the hearing was sent to the claimant; 6.2. the claimant did not apply for an adjournment; 6.3. the claimant failed to attend the hearing; 6.4. the claimant failed to provide any reason for his non-attendance; 6.5. given the claimant’s claims were presented outwith the period specified by section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, he had the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable for him to have presented his claim in time and that is was presented within a further reasonable period, which burden could not be satisfied in the absence of evidence from him; 6.6. whilst the claimant did not have a formal burden under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, his explanation for the delay and representations generally would be an important part of the Tribunal considering the just and equitable discretion.[1]The Claimant’s complaint of disability discrimination was not presented within the relevant statutory time limit as required by section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and further it is not just and equitable to extend time to allow it to proceed. The Claimant’s complaint is therefore dismissed.[2]The Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the relevant statutory time limit as required by section 111 of the Employment Act 1996 and further it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented within such time limit/ it was not, in any event, presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The Claimant’s complaint is therefore dismissed. Employment Judge Goraj Date: 14 May 2019 Case no. 1403518/2018 As reasons for the Judgment were announced orally at the Hearing written reasons shall not be provided unless they are requested by a party within 14 days of the sending of this Judgment to the parties. Online publication of judgments and reasons The Employment Tribunal (ET) is required to maintain a register of all judgments and written reasons. The register must be accessible to the public. It has recently been moved online. All judgments and reasons since February 2017 are now available at: https://www.gov.uk/employmenttribunal-decisions The ET has no power to refuse to place a judgment or reasons on the online register, or to remove a judgment or reasons from the register once they have been placed there. If you consider that these documents should be anonymised in anyway prior to publication, you will need to apply to the ET for an order to that effect under Rule 50 of the ET’s Rules of Procedure. Such an application would need to be copied to all other parties for comment and it would be carefully scrutinised by a judge (where appropriate, with panel members) before deciding whether (and to what extent) anonymity should be granted to a party or a witness